European Central Bank
Publications
Monetary and fiscal policy interactions: risks to price stability in times of high government debt
The change in macroeconomic conditions since the ECB’s strategy review in 2021 towards an environment characterised by above-target inflation, high interest rates, and renewed concerns about elevated government debt has been a vocal reminder of the intricate interdependencies between monetary and fiscal policies. Against this background, our paper reviews the literature on how central banks’ ability to maintain price stability is shaped by their interactions with fiscal policy and the state of the economy. According to standard models, a policy framework aimed at price stability requires suitable commitments from both monetary and fiscal authorities. When public debt burdens become too high, price stability may be at risk. The paper also draws lessons on how to mitigate such risks.
Capital requirements in Pillar 1 or Pillar 2: does it matter for market discipline?
The results of this paper provide empirical evidence that regulatory capital ratios drive bank Credit Default Swaps (CDS) and that markets react more to changes in capital requirements if implemented via direct adjustments to Pillar 1 risk weights than imposed as a percentage of Risk-Weighted Assets (RWAs) under Pillar 2. In other words, market discipline on bank capital adequacy is sensitive to the composition of the capital requirement stack. Therefore, this paper contributes novel insights to existing research on the market relevance of regulatory capital ratios, on the functioning of the Basel framework, and on market discipline along with its relationship with Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 capital requirements. The findings are relevant in light of the continuous discussions around the capital regulation for Interest Rate Risk in the Banking Book (IRRBB) and other Pillar 2 risks because they suggest that risks are more disciplined by markets if they are reflected in regulatory capital ratios via RWAs. Moreover, the results suggest that further regulatory alignment within the EU can impact the comparability of regulatory capital ratios and affect pricing decisions. In the first empirical step, the research investigates the drivers of CDS and identifies a significant relationship between CDS spreads and regulatory capital ratios. In the second step, the paper researches a quasi-natural experiment based on an event in the EU banking sector. In 2018, the Swedish supervisory authority changed the implementation approach of a risk weight floor on Swedish mortgages by shifting it from Pillar 2 to Pillar 1 while keeping total capital requirements stable. To assess if this merely technical regulatory adjustment triggered an unexpected reaction by markets, a two-step system Generalised Method of Moments (GMM) regression is applied to a sample of CDS spreads of 21 European banks between 2014 and 2020.
Working Papers
Monetary and fiscal policy interactions: risks to price stability in times of high government debt
The change in macroeconomic conditions since the ECB’s strategy review in 2021 towards an environment characterised by above-target inflation, high interest rates, and renewed concerns about elevated government debt has been a vocal reminder of the intricate interdependencies between monetary and fiscal policies. Against this background, our paper reviews the literature on how central banks’ ability to maintain price stability is shaped by their interactions with fiscal policy and the state of the economy. According to standard models, a policy framework aimed at price stability requires suitable commitments from both monetary and fiscal authorities. When public debt burdens become too high, price stability may be at risk. The paper also draws lessons on how to mitigate such risks.
Capital requirements in Pillar 1 or Pillar 2: does it matter for market discipline?
The results of this paper provide empirical evidence that regulatory capital ratios drive bank Credit Default Swaps (CDS) and that markets react more to changes in capital requirements if implemented via direct adjustments to Pillar 1 risk weights than imposed as a percentage of Risk-Weighted Assets (RWAs) under Pillar 2. In other words, market discipline on bank capital adequacy is sensitive to the composition of the capital requirement stack. Therefore, this paper contributes novel insights to existing research on the market relevance of regulatory capital ratios, on the functioning of the Basel framework, and on market discipline along with its relationship with Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 capital requirements. The findings are relevant in light of the continuous discussions around the capital regulation for Interest Rate Risk in the Banking Book (IRRBB) and other Pillar 2 risks because they suggest that risks are more disciplined by markets if they are reflected in regulatory capital ratios via RWAs. Moreover, the results suggest that further regulatory alignment within the EU can impact the comparability of regulatory capital ratios and affect pricing decisions. In the first empirical step, the research investigates the drivers of CDS and identifies a significant relationship between CDS spreads and regulatory capital ratios. In the second step, the paper researches a quasi-natural experiment based on an event in the EU banking sector. In 2018, the Swedish supervisory authority changed the implementation approach of a risk weight floor on Swedish mortgages by shifting it from Pillar 2 to Pillar 1 while keeping total capital requirements stable. To assess if this merely technical regulatory adjustment triggered an unexpected reaction by markets, a two-step system Generalised Method of Moments (GMM) regression is applied to a sample of CDS spreads of 21 European banks between 2014 and 2020.
Stablecoins, money market funds and monetary policy
Using a new series of crypto shocks, we document that money market funds’ (MMF) assets under management, and traditional financial market variables more broadly, do not react to crypto shocks, whereas stablecoin market capitalization does. U.S. monetary policy shocks, in contrast, drive developments in both crypto and traditional markets. Crucially, the reaction of MMF assets and stablecoin market capitalization to monetary policy shocks is different: while prime-MMF assets rise after a monetary policy tightening, stablecoin market capitalization declines. In assessing the state of the stablecoin market, the risk-taking environment as dictated by monetary policy is much more consequential than flight-to-quality dynamics observed within stablecoins and MMFs.
Legal Acts
Research
Consumer demand for central bank digital currency as a means of payment
What factors could drive transactional demand for central bank digital currency (CBDC)? We analyse payment survey data to arrive at a framework for understanding the role of adoption frictions and design strategies in shaping CBDC demand. The results of our analysis show that, while consumers may initially prefer to use more traditional payment methods, a design tailored to their specific needs could significantly increase CBDC uptake. Raising awareness and capitalising on network effects could also boost demand for CBDC.
Different household – different inflation rate
Households differ considerably in terms of the inflation they experience at any point in time. The main reasons for this are that prices (and thus price changes) differ from place to place and that households do not all buy the same products. Households adjust their purchases over time, but not enough to offset these differences.
A diverse investor base impacts the effectiveness of large-scale asset purchases
Large-scale asset purchases can impact the price of securities either directly, when securities are targeted by the central bank, or indirectly through portfolio rebalancing by private investors. We quantify both the direct impact and that of portfolio rebalancing, emphasising the role of investor heterogeneity. We use proprietary security-level data on asset holdings of different investors. We measure the direct impact at security level, finding that it is smaller for securities predominantly held by more price-elastic investors, i.e. funds and banks. Comparing securities at the 90th and 10th percentile of the investor elasticity distribution, the price impact of central bank purchases on the securities held by more price-elastic investors is only two-thirds as large. To assess the portfolio rebalancing effects, we construct a novel shift-share instrument. With this, we measure investors’ quasi-exogenous exposure to central bank purchases, based on their holdings of eligible securities before the quantitative easing (QE) programme was announced. We show that funds and banks sell eligible securities to the central bank and rebalance their portfolios towards ineligible securities, with those investors more exposed to central bank purchases ex ante engaging in more rebalancing. Using detailed holdings data for mutual funds, we estimate that for each euro of proceeds from selling securities to the central bank, the average fund allocates 88 cents to ineligible assets and 12 cents to other eligible assets that the central bank did not buy in that time period. The price of ineligible securities held by more exposed funds increases compared with those held by less exposed funds, underscoring the fact that the portfolio rebalancing channel is at work.